Hey Appeasement Keule und Character Assassination gegen Scholz!

12. September 2024

Dafür gibt sich Sprin­ger doch ger­ne her! Die Poli­ti­co Ad Käu­fe sind sicher gera­de wie­der um 2% gestiegen.

Die NATO Pro­pa­gan­da agiert end­lich wie­der aus vol­len Roh­ren! (Ich woll­te im Gegen­satz zu Sprin­ger nicht feu­ert schreiben.)

Selbst der Pri­va­tier Ischin­ger wird von Sprin­ger wie­der vor die Kame­ra gezerrt, obwohl alle (!) sei­ne Aus­sa­gen auf der “deut­schen Frie­dens­kon­fe­renz” mitt­ler­wei­le wider­legt sind.

Gut, Intel­li­genz und Exper­ti­se war an die­ser Stel­le noch nie gefragt, also bit­te Sprin­ger­me­di­en, nach der Scholz Ausa­ge, jetzt bit­te Münch­ner Sicherheitskonferenz- und NATO-Propaganda für den deutsch­spra­chi­gen Medienkonsumenten.

Da hät­te sich die Schweiz bei Bür­gen­stock mehr bemü­hen müs­sen, weiß der aus den US bezahl­te Ischinger:


Auf der größ­ten deut­schen Kon­fe­renz zum The­ma Frie­den, und wie sehr ihn sich die Ukrai­ne wünscht, vom 11. Juli 2024 nämlich.

Gut, die Wahr­heit ist das kom­plet­te Gegen­teil, dass die Ukrai­ne sich näm­lich im End­kom­mu­ni­quee Ent­wurf von der Schweiz die Pas­sa­gen her­aus­strei­chen hat las­sen die sie zu wei­te­ren Kon­fe­ren­zen mit Russ­land ver­pflich­tet hätten…

Und gut, die Schweiz wur­de von der Ukrai­ne unter Druck gesetzt das End­kom­mu­ni­quee zu ändern…

A long seri­es of devi­lish­ly cle­ver plans

Aber nur weil er das kom­plet­te Gegen­teil des tat­säch­lich Gesche­he­nen und nur kom­plet­te Drecks­pro­pa­gan­da ver­brei­tet, also nur des­halb laden wir doch den Ischin­ger bei Sprin­ger nicht weni­ger häu­fig ein!

Die deutsch­spra­chi­ge Bevöl­ke­rung will schließ­lich von hin­ten bis vor­ne ver­arscht werden!

Dan­ke Atlantik-Brücke! Die infor­miert den Ischin­ger näm­lich immer so zeitnah!

Kom­men­ta­re unter den Vide­os sind natür­lich wie­der deaktiviert.

Kurze Durchsage von Seiten des Wertewestens

11. September 2024

Als die Ukrai­ne Kursk über­fal­len hat, war das selbst­re­dend Selbst­ver­tei­di­gung, als Russ­land vom Iran nicht nur Shaheds, son­dern Rake­ten bestellt hat, aber selbst­re­dend eine Eska­la­ti­on. Die Bom­ben­kam­pa­gne gegen die Ener­gie­in­fra­struk­tur in der Ukrai­ne, der mitt­ler­wei­le über zwei Jah­re knapp 80% der ukrai­ni­schen Ener­gie­ver­sor­gung zum Opfer gefal­len sind sei in die­ser Woche selbst­re­dend auch eine Eskalation.

Des­halb eva­lu­ie­re man selbst­re­dend ukrai­ni­sche Bewaff­nungs­be­dürft­nis­se neu, und mel­de sich dann gegen Ende der Woche mit einer Durch­sa­ge über eine even­tu­el­le Frei­ga­be weit­rei­chen­der Waf­fen wie aktu­ell neu eva­lu­iert drin­gend von der Ukrai­ne benötigt.

Es sei wich­tig, dass die Ukrai­ne gewinnt. Der neue ukrai­ni­sche Außen­mi­nis­ter macht gleich mit “die Krim gehört zur Ukrai­ne” auf.

Des­halb sei es ja laut Scholz aktu­ell Zeit für Verhandlungen.

Gut eigent­lich dass ges­tern bereits Dr. Ben­ja­min Tal­lis mit “was Scholz unter Frie­dens­ver­hand­lun­gen ver­steht, und was Selen­skyj unter Frie­dens­ver­hand­lun­gen ver­steht unter­schei­det sich dia­me­tral” auf­mer­ken hat lassen:

Dr. Ben­ja­min Tal­lis worked at DGAP from Sep­tem­ber 2022 to June 2024. He was a seni­or rese­arch fel­low the­re and ran the pro­ject “Action Group Zeitenwende“.

src: click

Und Ex-Verteidigungsminister Olek­sij Res­ni­kow vor drei Tagen fest­stellt “die Zeit für Ver­hand­lun­gen wäre noch nicht reif”.

Naja, in drei Jah­ren dann.

Dann kann der Krieg ja end­lich wei­ter gehen.

Pro­pa­gan­da und diver­gie­ren­de stra­te­gi­sche Aus­rich­tun­gen hat natür­lich wie­der nie­mand ent­deckt. Am aller­we­nigs­ten die deutsch­sprchi­ge Qualitätspresse.

(Der Stan­dard schläft mal wie­der und hats sei einer Stun­de nicht geschafft Inhal­te der PK zu ver­öf­fent­li­chen. Naja, bald dann.)

Neues von “es wird eh die ganze Zeit parallel dazu verhandelt” Deitelhoff

10. September 2024

- der kriegs­geils­ten Frie­dens­for­sche­rin aller Zeiten:

Ich para­phra­sier Dei­tel­hoff, die kriegs­geils­te Frie­dens­for­sche­rin aller Zei­ten mal: 

Russ­land muss gezwun­gen wer­den nur im Frie­dens­ver­hand­lungs­for­mat der Ukrai­ne zu ver­han­deln und die­sem zuzu­stim­men. Weil die MEHRZAHL ALLER STAATEN (also qua Dei­tel­hoff 90 von 193 UN-STAATEN, “zu Bür­gen­stock ange­reist waren” (aber halt defi­ni­tiv kei­ne 90 das End­kom­mu­ni­que in Bür­gen­stock unter­zeich­net haben, mehr so 83)), der Auf­bau von Frie­dens­ver­hand­lun­gen als Fort­set­zung die­ses For­mats wird aber noch defi­ni­tiv ein Jahr dau­ern, nicht nur ein paar Mona­te (wo wir doch dau­ernd par­al­lel, ohne Man­dat mit Russ­land neben­bei ver­han­deln), und nach der Frie­dens­ver­hand­lung, wo dann auch Russ­land also defi­nitv mal ein­ge­lan­den wer­den soll­te um an die­sem Ver­han­deln auch mal teil­zu­neh­men, wür­den sich über “meh­re­re Jah­re” erstre­cken so Deitelhoff.

Der Mode­ra­tor ist schon wie­der zufrie­den, er hat noch nie jeman­den ein so sin­ni­ges State­ment abge­ben gehört.

Moment, wor­um gings im Bei­trag? Ach­ja, um Scholz’ State­ment im Som­mer­inter­view “die Frie­dens­ver­hand­lun­gen müss­ten jetzt inten­si­viert werden”.

Geil oder, in vier Jah­ren dann, laut Dei­tel­hoff - hät­te das Scholz näm­lich so gemeint.…

Wäh­rend wir ja eh stän­dig neben bei mit Russ­land ver­han­deln, so Dei­tel­hoff in ver­gan­ge­nen Tagen.

Die­se Gesell­schaft ist das abso­lut gro­tesk und abar­tigst Allerletzte.

edit: Viel­leicht irre ich mich aber auch, und “es wird eh die gan­ze Zeit par­al­lel dazu ver­han­delt” war nur Clau­dia Major, Stif­tung Wis­sen­schaft und Poli­tik… Sie wis­sen schon Clau­dia “das ist kei­ne Eska­la­ti­ons­spi­ra­le, das ist eine Lern­kuve” Major.

Clau­dia “nix Wis­sen­schaft, nur Pro­pa­gan­da” Major

edit: Dazu noch kurz die US Think­tank­in­dus­trie via Poland:

“Scholz must be punis­hed, Ger­ma­ny must suf­fer, Ukrai­ne must win.”

Sie hör­ten:

Dr. Ben­ja­min Tal­lis worked at DGAP from Sep­tem­ber 2022 to June 2024. He was a seni­or rese­arch fel­low the­re and ran the pro­ject “Action Group Zeitenwende“.

src: click

edit2: Klei­ner Nach­trag, der Lan­ge glaubt hier schon wie­der Pro­pa­gan­da schie­ben zu können.

Am Bür­gen­stock hät­ten laut Lan­ge heu­te, im deut­schen qua­li­ta­ti­ven Haupt­abend­fern­se­hen, 101 Staa­ten teil­ge­nom­men. (Wiki­pe­dia: Neben der Schwei­zer Dele­ga­ti­on nah­men Ver­tre­ter von 92 Staa­ten teil, davon hät­ten laut Lan­ge 94 eine Erklä­rung unter­schrie­ben… (Eighty-four dele­ga­ti­ons sup­port final decla­ra­ti­on of Ukrai­ne sum­mit (Swiss­in­fo, inklu­si­ve der Ukrai­ne) wahl­wei­se auch ger­ne: In all, 82 dele­ga­ti­ons signed on to sup­port the com­mu­ni­que, oder aber Wiki­pe­dia: Das Com­mu­ni­qué wur­de von ins­ge­samt 88 Dele­ga­tio­nen unter­zeich­net.

Gut, wie kams jetzt zu den 88? Der ver­ein­te Wer­te­wes­ten (US *hust*) hat da im Nach­hin­ein noch ein paar ehm sehr, sehr also über­aus eigen­stän­di­ge und wich­ti­ge Staa­ten akti­viert, die auch unbe­dingt unter­zeich­nen woll­ten, obwohl sie kei­ne Dele­ga­ti­on geschickt haben:

Anti­gua und Bar­bu­da, Bar­ba­dos, Mala­wi, Mar­shall­in­seln und Sambia.

Also 88 minus 6 = knapp 82 der zum Bür­gen­stock angereisten.

Gut, das muss jetzt weder der Mode­ra­tor wis­sen, noch der Lan­ge, noch muss das ZDF das für die Online Ver­öf­fent­li­chung kor­ri­gie­ren. NEIIIN, hier fal­sche Zah­len zu nen­nen ist ja im Sin­ne unse­rer Münch­ner Sicher­heits­kon­fe­renz­ler, also nen­nen wir hier ein­fach im Öffent­lich Recht­li­chen fal­sche Zahlen.

IN ZWEI AUFEINANDERFOLGENDEN SENDUNGEN DES SELBEN FORMATES.

Der deut­sche Zuschau­er soll verblöden.

edit3: Wir kön­nen doch bes­ser recher­chie­ren, also los gehts:

Sta­tus of the list of coun­tries and orga­niz­a­ti­ons at the time of first publi­ca­ti­on on 16 June 2024, 1.30pm

Alba­nia, Andor­ra, Argen­ti­na, Aus­tra­lia, Aus­tria, Bel­gi­um, Benin, Bos­nia and Her­ze­go­vina, Bul­ga­ria, Cabo Ver­de, Cana­da, Chi­le, Como­ros, Cos­ta Rica, Côte d’Ivoire, Coun­cil of Euro­pe, Croa­tia, Cyprus, Czech Repu­blic, Den­mark, Domi­ni­can Repu­blic, Ecua­dor, Esto­nia, Euro­pean Com­mis­si­on, Euro­pean Coun­cil, Euro­pean Par­lia­ment, Fiji, Fin­land, Fran­ce, Gam­bia, Geor­gia, Ger­ma­ny, Gha­na, Greece, Gua­te­ma­la, Hun­ga­ry, Ice­land, Iraq, Ire­land, Isra­el, Ita­ly, Japan, Jor­dan, Kenya, Koso­vo, Lat­via, Libe­ria, Liech­ten­stein, Lit­hua­nia, Luxem­burg, Mal­ta, Mol­d­o­va, Mona­co, Mon­te­ne­gro, Nether­lands, New Zea­land, North Mace­do­nia, Nor­way, Palau, Peru, Phil­ip­pi­nes, Poland, Por­tu­gal, Qatar, Repu­blic of Korea, Roma­nia, Rwan­da, San Mari­no, Sao Tomé and Princi­pe, Ser­bia, Sin­g­a­po­re, Slo­vak Repu­blic, Slo­ve­nia, Soma­lia, Spain, Suri­na­me, Swe­den, Switz­er­land, Timor Les­te, Tür­ki­ye, Ukrai­ne, United King­dom, United Sta­tes, Uruguay

src: click

Macht ohne die Ukrai­ne, und ohne die vier dar­in ver­steck­ten EU Insti­tu­tio­nen die noch­mal extra als Signees gezählt wur­den: 79

Dann sprin­gen davon noch drei ab:

Jor­dan with­drawing on 16 June.
Iraq also with­drew its signa­tu­re on 16 June.
As did Rwan­da on 17 June.

src: click

Macht 76 Unterzeichnerstaaten.

Dann mobi­li­siert schnell noch die US die fünf wei­te­ren - Anti­gua und Bar­bu­da, Bar­ba­dos, Mala­wi, Mar­shall­in­seln und Sambia.

Macht 81 Unter­stüt­zer­staa­ten, Stand heu­te. Bei 193 UN Mitgliedsstaaten.

Dann geht die west­li­che Pro­pa­gan­da her und addiert noch:

Ukrai­ne
Coun­cil of Europe
Euro­pean Commission
Euro­pean Coun­cil [Why two Coun­cils?]
Euro­pean Parliament
Die öku­me­ni­sche Delegation
Orga­niz­a­ti­on of Ame­ri­can States

macht 88 Delegationen.

Die des Vati­kans hat nicht unter­schrie­ben.

Sternstunden des österreichischen Journalismus

10. September 2024

Der Stan­dard, wer sonst.

Alte Grundlage

Doch wie weit war wirk­lich schon ein Frie­dens­ver­trag aus­ge­han­delt? Zu 75 Pro­zent, so beur­teil­te es spä­ter der rus­si­sche Chef­un­ter­händ­ler Wla­di­mir Medi­n­ski. “Es gab kei­ne Eini­gun­gen, und wir haben kei­ne Punk­te erreicht, wo wir einer Eini­gung nahe­ka­men”, sagt hin­ge­gen der ukrai­ni­sche Prä­si­den­ten­be­ra­ter Mycha­j­lo Podol­jak. Und: Para­phiert, also von den Prä­si­den­ten unter­schrie­ben, war das Doku­ment nicht.

src: click

Ich mei­ne, komm, wo soll­te der Jour­na­lis­mus nach­prü­fen, wenn er doch viel bes­ser brab­beln und Halb­wahr­hei­ten ver­brei­ten kann?

Die bis­he­ri­gen Leaks stam­men aus rus­si­schen oder nicht nach­voll­zieh­ba­ren Quel­len. Eine davon ist der pri­va­te Nach­rich­ten­dienst von Fari­da Rusta­mo­wa, einer frei­en, aus Aser­bai­dschan stam­men­den rus­si­schen Jour­na­lis­tin, die am 29. März einen rus­si­schen Text ver­öf­fent­lich­te, den sie angeb­lich aus Ver­hand­lungs­krei­sen bekom­men hat­te und der seit­her in eng­li­scher Über­set­zung um die Welt geht – als der Inhalt jenes Frie­dens­plans, der da angeb­lich aus­ge­han­delt und dann von John­son so erfolg­reich tor­pe­diert wur­de. Er umfasst zehn Punk­te und man fin­det ihn auf Deutsch bei von der Schu­len­burg, Emma und sogar in einem SWP-Bericht. Es gibt damit aber eini­ge Pro­ble­me: Auch die Finan­cial Times behaup­tet, Ein­blick in die­sen Plan gehabt zu haben, aller­dings hat­te ihre Ver­si­on 15 Punk­te. Und als Putin letz­tes Jahr vor Rama­pho­sas afri­ka­ni­scher Dele­ga­ti­on damit her­um­we­del­te, sprach er sogar von 18 Punk­ten, die noch dazu von den Mit­glie­dern der ukrai­ni­schen Dele­ga­ti­on damals „para­phiert“ (so sagt er auf Rus­sisch) wor­den sein sol­len. Das ist wich­tig, denn Ver­trä­ge wer­den unter­schrie­ben (mit vol­ler Unter­schrift). Para­phiert wer­den in der Regel ein­zel­ne Sei­ten, um zu ver­hin­dern, dass jemand nach­träg­lich Sei­ten ein­fügt, die nicht aus­ver­han­delt wur­den – was Putin im glei­chen Atem­zug der ukrai­ni­schen Sei­te vor­warf. Weder Rusta­mo­wa, noch von der Schu­len­burg, der sie zitiert, behaup­ten, das Papier sei unter­zeich­net wor­den. Selbst die rus­si­sche Nach­rich­ten­agen­tur Tass behaup­tet nur, die Ukrai­ner sei­en „bereit gewe­sen, es zu unter­zeich­nen“. Trotz­dem kur­siert die Mär vom unter­zeich­ne­ten Frie­dens­ver­trag seit­her im Inter­net. Das alles muss über­haupt nicht hei­ßen, dass es einen sol­chen Text gar nicht gege­ben hat oder eini­ge oder alle ver­brei­te­ten Ver­sio­nen gefälscht sind. Es gibt eine Men­ge ande­rer mög­li­cher Inter­pre­ta­tio­nen: dass unter­schied­li­che Ver­sio­nen zu unter­schied­li­chen Zeit­punk­ten gele­akt wur­den und der Ent­wurf zunächst weni­ger Punk­te hat­te als zu dem Moment, als er para­phiert wur­de (wenn er es wur­de), dass eini­ge Ver­sio­nen auf­ge­setzt, aber dann von bei­den Sei­ten ver­wor­fen (aber von einer Sei­te dann gele­akt) wur­den. Wesent­li­che Tei­le des Inhalts wur­den anschlie­ßend von Teil­neh­mern bei­der Dele­ga­tio­nen in Inter­views bestä­tigt. Betrach­tet man die, wird es erst so rich­tig interessant. […]
src: click (Ber­li­ner Zei­tung -- mit einem Titel der die Kol­le­gen vom ARD Fack­ten­che­cker auf­macht: Frie­dens­ver­trag für die Ukrai­ne: War­um auch die ARD-Faktenchecker Unrecht haben)
Remar­kab­ly, howe­ver, the two sides con­ti­nued to work around the clock on a trea­ty that Putin and Zelen­sky were sup­po­sed to sign during a sum­mit to be held in the not-too-distant future. The sides were actively exch­an­ging drafts with each other and, it appears, begin­ning to share them with other par­ties. (In his Febru­a­ry 2023 inter­view, Ben­nett repor­ted see­ing 17 or 18 working drafts of the agree­ment; Lukas­hen­ko also repor­ted see­ing at least one.) We have clo­se­ly scru­ti­ni­zed two of the­se drafts, one that is dated April 12 and ano­t­her dated April 15, which par­ti­ci­pants in the talks told us was the last one exch­an­ged bet­ween the par­ties. They are broad­ly simi­lar but con­tain important differences—and both show that the com­mu­ni­qué had not resol­ved some key issu­es. […] In the end, it remains unclear whe­ther the­se pro­vi­si­ons would have been a deal-breaker. The lead Ukrai­ni­an nego­tia­tor, Arak­ha­mia, later down­play­ed their impor­t­ance. As he put it in a Novem­ber 2023 inter­view on a Ukrai­ni­an tele­vi­si­on news pro­gram, Rus­sia had “hoped until the last moment that they [could] squee­ze us to sign such an agree­ment, that we [would] adopt neu­tra­li­ty. This was the big­gest thing for them. They were rea­dy to finish the war if we, like Fin­land [during the Cold War], adop­ted neu­tra­li­ty and under­took not to join NATO.” […] Des­pi­te the­se sub­stan­ti­al dis­agree­ments, the April 15 draft sug­gests that the trea­ty would be signed wit­hin two weeks. Gran­ted, that date might have shifted, but it shows that the two teams plan­ned to move fast. “We were very clo­se in mid-April 2022 to fina­li­zing the war with a peace sett­le­ment,” one of the Ukrai­ni­an nego­tia­tors, Olek­san­dr Cha­lyi, recoun­ted at a public appearan­ce in Decem­ber 2023. “[A] week after Putin star­ted his aggres­si­on, he con­clu­ded he had made a huge mista­ke and tried to do ever­ything pos­si­ble to con­clu­de an agree­ment with Ukrai­ne.” […] In the 2023 inter­view, Arak­ha­mia ruf­fled some fea­thers by see­ming to hold John­son respon­si­ble for the out­co­me. “When we retur­ned from Istan­bul,” he said, “Boris John­son came to Kyiv and said that we won’t sign anything at all with [the Russians]—and let’s just keep figh­t­ing.” Sin­ce then, Putin has repeated­ly used Arakhamia’s remarks to bla­me the West for the col­lap­se of the talks and demons­tra­te Ukraine’s sub­or­di­na­ti­on to its sup­por­ters. Not­with­stan­ding Putin’s mani­pu­la­ti­ve spin, Arak­ha­mia was poin­ting to a real pro­blem: the com­mu­ni­qué descri­bed a mul­ti­la­te­ral frame­work that would requi­re Wes­tern wil­ling­ness to enga­ge diplo­ma­ti­cal­ly with Rus­sia and con­si­der a genui­ne secu­ri­ty gua­ran­tee for Ukrai­ne. Neit­her was a prio­ri­ty for the United Sta­tes and its allies at the time.
src: click (For­eign Affairs) 

Und jetzt noch Putin dazu:
Tucker Carl­son: Sie sagen, Sie wol­len eine Ver­hand­lungs­lö­sung für die Gescheh­nis­se in der Ukrai­ne. Putin: Wir hat­ten in Istan­bul [im März 2022] ein gros­ses Doku­ment unter­brei­tet, das der Lei­ter der ukrai­ni­schen Dele­ga­ti­on para­phiert hat. Er hat sei­ne Unter­schrift auf eini­ge der Bestim­mun­gen gesetzt, nicht auf alle. Dann hat er selbst gesagt: «Wir waren bereit, die­ses Doku­ment zu unter­zeich­nen, aber Mr. John­son, der dama­li­ge Pre­mier­mi­nis­ter Gross­bri­tan­ni­ens, riet uns davon ab. Es sei bes­ser, gegen Russ­land zu kämp­fen. Sie wür­den uns alle Mit­tel dazu geben, um das zurück­zu­ho­len, was wir wäh­rend der Aus­ein­an­der­set­zun­gen mit Russ­land ver­lo­ren hät­ten.» Der Lei­ter der Ver­hand­lungs­grup­pe, [Dawyd] Arach­a­mi­ja, ist immer noch Vor­sit­zen­der der Frak­ti­on der Regie­rungs­par­tei, der Par­tei des Prä­si­den­ten in der Rada. Er hat­te sei­ne vor­läu­fi­ge Unter­schrift unter das Doku­ment gesetzt, das ich erwähnte.
src: click (böse Sei­te, nicht zitier­wür­dig, Vor­sicht. Aber das Inter­view schau ich mir jetzt nicht noch­mal an..) 

Viel­leicht Putin hier (DW)?

Putin: “It’s not us but the lea­ders­hip of Ukrai­ne has announ­ced that they will not con­duct any nego­tia­ti­ons, moreo­ver the cur­rent pre­si­dent of Ukrai­ne signed a cor­re­spon­ding decree pro­hi­bi­t­ing the­se nego­tia­ti­ons, the­re­fo­re I under­stand your con­cern I share it and of cour­se we are rea­dy to con­si­der any of your proposals, …

Die­ser Ver­damm­te Rus­se schon wie­der, behaup­tet schon wie­der die Ver­trä­ge wären von den bei­den Prä­si­den­ten para­phiert gewe­sen! Ach­so ja, behaup­tet der ja gar­nicht… Shit, Fuck, der Stan­dard mal wie­der - beim Erfin­den sei­ner Par­al­lel­rea­li­tät. Naja, so ein over­spe­ci­fic non deni­al deni­al im Stan­dard ist aber auch ganz was schö­nes. Ein­fach immer schön gra­de­aus, an der Rea­li­tät vor­bei. So infor­mie­ren wir die Öster­rei­cher. Die­se Gesell­schaft ist das abso­lut gro­tesk und abar­tigst Allerletzte.

A long series of devilishly clever plans

04. September 2024

Zelen­skyy: Sur­pri­se inva­si­on aimed to res­to­re Ukrai­ne ‘ter­ri­to­ri­al integrity’ 

Ano­t­her one of tho­se deve­lish­ly cle­ver Selen­skyj plans!

Today he [Selen­skyj] said, they are going to hold it inde­fi­ni­te­ly.” [DEFENSIVE OPERATION CONFIRMED!]

Last deve­lish­ly cle­ver Selen­sky plan of cour­se having been:

Jour­na­list: “Mr. Pre­si­dent um I’ve made trips into Ukrai­ne sin­ce the war bro­ke out and it’s qui­te sur­pri­sing to see you here back home in Sin­g­a­po­re so my ques­ti­on is, what you brought what brought you here all the way? Is the­re a cer­tain objec­ti­ve that you came with to ral­ly more on the Asi­an Nations?”

Cle­ver­est pre­si­dent in the world Selen­skyj: “Now thank you for the ques­ti­on, we need the sup­port of Asi­an coun­tries it is much nee­ded. We respect each voice, each ter­ri­to­ry, each of the coun­tries in regi­on, we want Asia to know what is going on in Ukrai­ne, we want Asia to sup­port the end of the war. We want Asi­an lea­ders to attend the peace Sum­mit. We know that many Asi­an coun­tries do not sup­port Ukrai­ne with Wea­pon­ry. We have never pres­su­red them never deman­ded it we always ask for first and fore­mo­st poli­ti­cal sup­port, huma­ni­ta­ri­an sup­port, sup­port of our peop­le, civi­li­ans our child­ren. Today once again Rus­sia unfor­tu­n­a­te­ly, I unders­core it, yet again becau­se for you to under­stand that for us it is very pain­ful and a bit stran­ge unfor­tu­n­a­te­ly, reg­rett­ab­ly Rus­sia using Chi­ne­se influ­ence on the regi­on using Chi­ne­se diplo­mats also does ever­ything to dis­rupt peace Sum­mit reg­rett­ab­ly this is unfor­tu­n­a­te that such big inde­pen­dent power­ful coun­try as Chi­na is an instru­ment for Putin.

[A bit later then in diplo­ma­tic cycles it per­spi­red, that chi­na had told other coun­tries, that in his expec­ta­ti­on, Selen­skyj gre­at peace for­mu­la plan would pro­long and even elon­ga­te this war -- and that was the extent of it. Such Putin pup­pet, Chi­na. Much. Much wow.]

[…]

Jour­na­list: Mr. Pre­si­dent so which coun­tries you were able to con­vin­ce you to join the Peace sum­mit and Ukrai­ne has too litt­le Mili­ta­ry Sup­port to win this war, do you belie­ve in a diplo­ma­tic solu­ti­on and what would have to hap­pen in con­cre­te terms.

Most intel­li­gen­test pre­si­dent in the world Selen­skyj: Thank you for the ques­ti­on, I have not met with all the coun­tries I will still meet with the lea­der of Sin­g­a­po­re, I with Indo­ne­sia with them and I’m sure that the­se coun­tries will be repre­sen­ted on the sum­mit, but I can­not reply on behalf of the­se coun­tries that is my per­so­nal opi­ni­on and then fur­ther it is the choice of every coun­try and I’m always open with this we respect every posi­ti­on. But but but this posi­ti­on has to be clear the­re is no slavery, the­re is no no for­cing to anything we we we are dis­cus­sing the details, we are tel­ling what what what what we have the the los­ses we have and the plan to the end of the war it is pos­si­ble to end the war in diplo­ma­tic way, if the world unites and iso­la­tes Rus­sia, if after our peace Sum­mit Rus­sia makes some con­fe­rence and the­re will be repre­sen­ted a lot of coun­tries, then this would mean that the world is divi­ded and I think that this is a bad ten­den­cy and that is why I said this way about Rus­sia and and about the repre­sen­ta­ti­ves of some other coun­tries, that they are working to dis­rupt the peace Sum­mit, they they should not dis­rupt our peace they should deal with their own country.” 

Prompt­ly fol­lo­wed up by:

Swiss Peace Sum­mit could end up har­ming Ukrai­ne as not­hing is going to plan (www.eurointegration.com.ua)

Prompt­ly fol­lo­wed up by:

Ukrai­ne Peace Sum­mit turns hard on Rus­sia. How lea­ders amen­ded the final decisi­on under criticism

THURSDAY, 13 JUNE 2024 — SERGIY SYDORENKO, EUROPEAN PRAVDA

Har­sh cri­ti­cism of the agreed draft reso­lu­ti­on of the Peace Sum­mit, voi­ced both in Ukrai­ne and by Ukraine’s allies, for­ced the orga­nisers [thats Switz­er­land btw.] to make con­ces­si­ons. Switz­er­land, which is orga­ni­sing the Glo­bal Peace Sum­mit, sent a radi­cal­ly revi­sed docu­ment to all capi­tals of the par­ti­ci­pa­ting coun­tries, cor­rec­ting key issu­es high­ligh­ted by Euro­pean Pravda.

The updated draft is ent­i­re­ly accep­ta­ble for Ukrai­ne. It expli­ci­tly calls the war “Rus­si­an aggres­si­on.” Loo­p­ho­les that could have paved the way for ter­ri­to­ri­al con­ces­si­ons from Ukrai­ne were remo­ved from the text. Several sta­tes that had plan­ned to attend the Peace Sum­mit in Switz­er­land have deci­ded not to go the­re after the draft decisi­on was chan­ged in favour of Ukraine.

Euro­pean Prav­da has lear­ned the details of the nego­tia­ti­ons and the decisi­on that will be adop­ted this weekend.

Behind the sce­nes of the Peace Summit
The time­li­ne of the­se events is cru­cial: it shows how urgent the chan­ges that occur­red over the past week were.

The idea to hold the Peace Sum­mit in Switz­er­land was agreed upon at the begin­ning of the year. On 10 April, Switz­er­land announ­ced the agreed date and loca­ti­on for the sum­mit. Lea­ders of about 160 coun­tries, four inter­na­tio­nal orga­ni­sa­ti­ons (UN, EU, Coun­cil of Euro­pe, OSCE), the Pope and the Ecu­me­ni­cal Patri­arch were invi­ted to the Bür­gen­stock Alpi­ne Spa. It was pre­de­ter­mi­ned that Rus­sia would not be pre­sent at the first Peace Sum­mit, which Ukrai­ne deman­ded in the first place.

Both Kyiv and Bern aimed to adopt a decisi­on fol­lowing the sum­mit. Howe­ver, the wor­d­ing nee­ded to be agreed upon by all participants.

Pre­pa­ra­ti­on for this docu­ment star­ted more than two mon­ths ago. Euro­pean Prav­da has the April draft of the joint com­mu­ni­qué, whe­re the sum­mit dates were still ten­ta­ti­ve. That docu­ment was pre­pa­red in Kyiv and was ent­i­re­ly accep­ta­ble for Ukrai­ne, adhe­ring to the important red lines for Ukrai­ni­an society.

Howe­ver, Switz­er­land per­sua­ded Ukrai­ne to sof­ten it as much as pos­si­ble, con­si­de­ring the wis­hes of all par­ti­ci­pants. On 28 May, a com­pro­mi­se ver­si­on was sent from Bern to all capi­tals, and initi­al­ly, Kyiv had to agree to it.

Ever­ything chan­ged when the public lear­ned that this draft was dan­ge­rous for Ukraine.

The dis­cus­sion began with an arti­cle by Euro­pean Prav­da, publis­hed on 5 June. The next day, on 6 June, Kyiv was for­ced to make public state­ments asser­ting that “Ukrai­ne will not retre­at from the Peace For­mu­la.” This fue­led dis­cus­sions in the capi­tals of Ukraine’s allies, which were also not thril­led with the wor­d­ing of the Swiss docu­ment. At least a few of them con­ta­c­ted Bern with a pro­po­sal to revi­se the joint statement.

On 9 June, Switz­er­land had sent a com­ple­te­ly new draft to all coun­tries. Amen­ding the com­mu­ni­qué took mere days, not mon­ths as before.

What has changed

The summit’s decisi­on remains unch­an­ged in for­mat and struc­tu­re. This is a two-page docu­ment dedi­ca­ted to three issu­es: nuclear secu­ri­ty, food secu­ri­ty and the pri­so­ners of war. Key issu­es that lay out­side the­se points have been addres­sed though.

Rus­si­an Aggression

– Old wor­d­ing: The May draft decisi­on of the Peace Sum­mit did not men­ti­on the word “aggres­si­on,” mea­ning the inter­na­tio­nal crime whe­re Rus­sia is the per­pe­tra­tor and Ukrai­ne the victim.

– New wor­d­ing: This has been amen­ded. The joint com­mu­ni­qué now refers to “the aggres­si­on of the Rus­si­an Fede­ra­ti­on against Ukraine”.

Ter­ri­to­ri­al Inte­gri­ty and the UN Charter
– Old wor­d­ing: the pre­vious sum­mit decisi­on ver­si­on crea­ted a legal win­dow to inclu­de Ukrai­ne aban­do­ning part of its ter­ri­to­ry in the con­di­ti­ons of “sus­tainab­le peace with Rus­sia”, if necessary.

– New wor­d­ing: the new draft decisi­on clear­ly sta­tes that the basis for sus­tainab­le peace will be only “a solu­ti­on based on the princip­le of respect for the ter­ri­to­ri­al inte­gri­ty and sov­er­eig­n­ty of all sta­tes”. [Cri­mea back to Ukrai­ne, and no neu­tra­li­ty that inclu­des “limi­ta­ti­on on mili­ta­ry forces”]

Alter­na­ti­ve Peace Formulas

– Old wor­d­ing: the pre­vious draft blur­red the mea­ning of the Peace For­mu­la and ope­ned up space for inter­na­tio­nal dis­cus­sion of all alter­na­ti­ve visi­ons of peace, such as the Chinese-Brazilian one, which envi­sa­ges a halt to the streng­t­he­ning of Ukraine’s Armed For­ces and a ces­sa­ti­on of hostilities.

– New wor­d­ing: the new wor­d­ing sta­tes that only peace pro­po­sals that com­ply with inter­na­tio­nal law (i.e. an uncon­di­tio­nal return of the 1991 bor­ders, unless revi­sed by Ukrai­ne its­elf) and the UN Char­ter (in par­ti­cu­lar, Ukraine’s uncon­di­tio­nal [no for­ce limi­ta­ti­on] right to con­ti­nue repel­ling Rus­si­an aggres­si­on and libe­ra­ting the occu­p­ied ter­ri­to­ries) will be taken into account.

Invol­ve­ment of Russia

– Old wor­d­ing: the ear­lier ver­si­on tur­ned Rus­sia from an aggres­sor into a par­ti­ci­pant in peace talks, requi­ring only vague “confidence-building mea­su­res” on nuclear and food security.

– New wor­d­ing: this sec­tion has been rewrit­ten from scratch. The Swiss agreed not to men­ti­on Rus­sia at all in the pro­vi­si­on on peace talks, ins­tead refer­ring to “all par­ties”. The­re is no lon­ger a wea­ke­ned requi­re­ment for “confidence-building mea­su­res”, but ins­tead “spe­ci­fic actions” are requi­red. And most import­ant­ly, the refe­ren­ces to a “second peace sum­mit” that hin­ted at a com­mit­ment to invi­te Rus­sia to par­ti­ci­pa­te have been removed.

Food Secu­ri­ty

– New addi­ti­on: The updated docu­ment inclu­des the state­ment that “attacks on mer­chant ships in ports and along the ent­i­re rou­te, as well as against civi­li­an ports and civi­li­an port infra­st­ruc­tu­re, are unac­cep­ta­ble”. This falls under the glo­bal food secu­ri­ty sec­tion but app­lies to all civi­li­an ves­sels, inclu­ding con­tai­ner ships or tho­se expor­ting Ukrai­ni­an metals. Con­ti­nued attacks would block Russia’s par­ti­ci­pa­ti­on in peace initiatives.

The­se signi­fi­cant chan­ges ensu­re that the new draft of the sum­mit decisi­on is more accep­ta­ble to Ukrai­ne, rein­for­cing its ter­ri­to­ri­al inte­gri­ty, addres­sing Rus­si­an aggres­si­on accu­rate­ly and main­tai­ning strin­gent con­di­ti­ons on peace nego­tia­ti­ons invol­ving Russia.

The docu­ment is accep­ta­ble for Ukraine
The Joint Com­mu­ni­qué on a Peace Frame­work in its new ver­si­on aligns with Ukraine’s inte­rests. Alt­hough the­re are still minor remarks, the main dan­gers have been addres­sed. Cur­r­ent­ly, the draft is not yet final: the­re is still a pos­si­bi­li­ty of point chan­ges on 13-14 June. Howe­ver, Euro­pean Pravda’s sources are incli­ned to belie­ve that the updated con­tent of the decisi­on will remain.

Rea­listic expec­ta­ti­ons are necessa­ry. This sum­mit will not lead to a bre­akthrough or end the war. Ukrai­ne is merely taking one of the first steps on a long path. Howe­ver, it is cru­cial that this step is in the right direc­tion and does not crea­te new problems.

The hig­her ambi­ti­on of the docu­ment came at a cost:

several coun­tries have decli­ned to par­ti­ci­pa­te in the sum­mit. As of 5 June, Switz­er­land offi­cial­ly announ­ced that it had “recei­ved more than 80 con­fir­ma­ti­ons of atten­dance at the level of heads of sta­tes and governments”, and the total num­ber of con­fir­med atten­de­es, as repor­ted by offi­cials, excee­ded 100. Howe­ver, in the fol­lowing days, this phra­se had to be remo­ved from the event’s web­site, and now it reads that “around 90 sta­tes have con­fir­med their par­ti­ci­pa­ti­on in the Sum­mit on Peace in Ukrai­ne, most of them at head of sta­te or government level”.

Sources of Euro­pean Prav­da repor­ted that, in rea­li­ty, about 15 coun­tries have “pau­sed” their atten­dance. In addi­ti­on, the num­ber of tho­se who have signal­led a demo­ti­on from the pre­si­den­ti­al or prime minis­te­ri­al level to the level of minis­ters or even their depu­ties is in the dozens.

Alt­hough it is obvious that due to the recent chan­ges, the sum­mit will be atten­ded by fewer sta­tes than initi­al­ly anti­ci­pa­ted by Ban­ko­va Street [whe­re the Ukrai­ni­an President’s Office is loca­ted] eight days ago, it is bet­ter to have a sum­mit of like-minded peop­le than to make con­ces­si­ons on issu­es that are cri­ti­cal for the state.

Ser­giy Sydorenko

Euro­pean Prav­da, Editor

src: click

Fol­lo­wed by this other deve­lish­ly cle­ver plan:

Mode­ra­tor: “CNN’s Oren Lie­ber­mann is live for us at the Pen­ta­gon. Oren what more do we know about what the­se mee­tings are going to entail?”

Lie­ber­man: “Phil, the push to use U.S. wea­pons to hit tar­gets lon­ger ran­ge, deeper in Rus­sia has been a very public and pri­va­te cam­pai­gn on the part of Ukrai­ne, stret­ching from Ukrai­ni­an Pre­si­dent Volo­dym­yr Zelen­sky and on down. It’ll be And­rey Yer­mak, the head of the office of the Pre­si­dent of Ukrai­ne and the defen­se minis­ter, who will be here for mee­tings tomor­row with Biden admi­nis­tra­ti­on offi­cials to pre­sent a prio­ri­ty list of tar­gets that they want to hit with long ran­ge U.S. wea­pons deeper insi­de of Rus­sia. They need a green light from the white House to be able to do that. And that’s their goal here. So far, the Biden admi­nis­tra­ti­on has­n’t chan­ged its posi­ti­on. In fact, U.S. wea­pons can only be used insi­de of Rus­sia in a very small area north of Ukrai­ne, insi­de of Rus­sia. And they have used tho­se wea­pons to that effect. The Kursk offen­si­ve has been car­ri­ed out effec­tively wit­hin that restric­tion from the U.S., but they say they need to be able to tar­get mili­ta­ry assets and high value tar­gets deeper insi­de of Rus­sia to chan­ge the cour­se of the war. Pre­si­dent Volo­dym­yr Zelen­sky tal­ked about this yesterday:

Selen­skyj: “We con­ti­nue to insist that their deter­mi­na­ti­on now lif­ting the restric­tions on long ran­ge strikes for Ukrai­ne now, will help us to end the war as soon as pos­si­ble and a fair way for Ukrai­ne and the world as a whole.”

Lie­ber­man: Ukrai­ne has used its medi­um ran­ge assets, its medi­um ran­ge wea­pons, to tar­get and car­ry out cross-border attacks. But Rus­sia has sim­ply moved their high value assets far­t­her back, far­t­her away from the front line, and they’­re out of ran­ge of Ukrai­nes cur­rent wea­pon­ry wit­hin the restric­tions pla­ced upon them by the US. That’s why they say it’s so important to get the­se restric­tions eased or out­right lifted. And that’s their goal here.”

Mode­ra­tor: “Oren, you make a gre­at point in the sen­se that this has been a public cam­pai­gn that has been going on for a while from top Ukrai­ni­an offi­cials, inclu­ding Pre­si­dent Zelen­sky. do we have any sen­se right now that becau­se of some rea­son or ano­t­her, the U.S. is actual­ly con­si­de­ring chan­ging the restrictions?”

Lie­ber­man: “So far, the admi­nis­tra­ti­on and the Pen­ta­gon have been clear that the restric­tions remain in place.”

Mode­ra­tor: “But, Phil, you and I have seen this so many times over the cour­se of the war, espe­cial­ly when Ukrai­ne car­ri­es out a very public slap cam­pai­gn that the Biden admi­nis­tra­ti­on will say, no, no, no, no, no. And then sud­den­ly, yes. We saw it with patri­ots. We saw it with ATACAMS. We saw it with Abrams tanks.”

Lie­ber­man: “And that’s what Ukrai­ne is hoping for here, that the public and pri­va­te pres­su­re cam­pai­gn that, that perhaps a com­pre­hen­si­ve list of tar­gets of what they want to hit to make that clear to the white House, that that will build up enough pres­su­re and con­vin­ce admi­nis­tra­ti­on offi­cials that final­ly, they will go from all of tho­se no’s to the yes that Ukrai­ne is hoping for.

Pre­ce­ded of cour­se by Selen­sky­js first deve­lish­ly cle­ver plan, exact­ly one mon­th after the start of the war:

Czech Tele­vi­si­on Mode­ra­tor: “Dear Mr, pre­si­dent, the­se are his­to­ri­cal­ly hard times. But the Ukrai­ne also is uni­fied as never befo­re. Do you see this as a chan­ge only in Ukrai­ne, or may­be also in euro­pe. And what is at the cen­ter of this change?”

Cle­vers­test pre­si­dent in the world Selen­skyj: “The world will chan­ge, it has alrea­dy chan­ged, poli­ti­ci­ans are alrea­dy afraid of their peop­le, they are afraid of social respon­si­bi­li­ty. They see, that peop­le are reac­ting dif­fer­ent­ly. And in many coun­tries, peop­le sup­port us 100%, but their lea­ders, do not sup­port us 100%, for one rea­son or ano­t­her. I’m not say­ing here who is right [?!?!], but it means, that social and public opi­ni­on will be stron­ger than any lea­der in the world. That is to say, we are all see­ing chan­ges and pro­ces­ses. Chan­ges that not only lead to theo­re­ti­cal, but to popu­lar demo­cra­cy, popu­lar demo­cra­cy is not a revo­lu­ti­on - demo­cra­cy is first and fore­mo­st, power of the peop­le. If you want to be the lea­der of your socie­ty, you have to be the lea­der of socie­ty, not to com­mand, but to be a lea­der and live with them in the same spi­rit. The­re­fo­re [?!] it seems to me, that this popu­lar demo­cra­cy is taking place in the world, and that this will lead to cer­tain secu­ri­ty alli­an­ces [?!], I am con­fi­dent, that the­re will be new secu­ri­ty alli­an­ces in the future. This does not mean, that its necessa­ry to lea­ve any uni­on. It does not mean, that it is necessa­ry to des­troy things that work. No it does not mean that. Peop­le just want peace, tran­qui­li­ty, sta­bi­li­ty and most import­ant­ly - con­fi­dence. Here, in all the­se chal­len­ges, con­fi­dence. Be it the new Covid, or god for­bid, war. A per­son who lives, pays taxes, resi­des here, was born or came here, is a citi­zen of the world for peace. And this per­son must know, that they must be pro­tec­ted in this coun­try. And if this per­son lea­ves for ano­t­her coun­try, this per­son will be pro­tec­ted the­re. The per­son will not suf­fer. The world is just facing such a chal­len­ge. It will eit­her accept this model, and come to such alli­an­ces, or the­re will be a chan­ge of many world lea­ders, and their socie­ties will find pro­per peop­le for themselves.”

God, this ukrai­ne real­ly is run, by the most devi­lish­ly cle­ver­est pre­si­dent in the who­le world! 

Good, wes­tern, demo­cra­tic world of course.

Ah, da kann der Krieg ja end­lich wei­ter­ge­hen. Sla­va, as always.